Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1741 | control, N = 871 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 172 | 50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75) | 50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75) | 50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73) | 0.931 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 174 | 0.708 | |||
f | 138 (79%) | 68 (78%) | 70 (80%) | ||
m | 36 (21%) | 19 (22%) | 17 (20%) | ||
occupation | 174 | 0.914 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
full_time | 22 (13%) | 12 (14%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 18 (10%) | 8 (9.2%) | 10 (11%) | ||
other | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (18%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (25%) | 21 (24%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.0%) | 4 (4.6%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (24%) | 23 (26%) | 19 (22%) | ||
marital | 174 | 0.972 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 8 (9.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
married | 53 (30%) | 25 (29%) | 28 (32%) | ||
none | 84 (48%) | 42 (48%) | 42 (48%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 10 (5.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 174 | 0.393 | |||
bachelor | 40 (23%) | 16 (18%) | 24 (28%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (24%) | 11 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.9%) | 4 (4.6%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.6%) | 8 (9.2%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
primary | 12 (6.9%) | 5 (5.7%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 19 (11%) | 10 (11%) | 9 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 42 (24%) | 19 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 9 (5.2%) | 4 (4.6%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
fam_income | 174 | 0.713 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.4%) | 2 (2.3%) | 4 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.7%) | 4 (4.6%) | 6 (6.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.6%) | 3 (3.4%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.6%) | 6 (6.9%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 33 (19%) | 20 (23%) | 13 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (14%) | 13 (15%) | 11 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (11%) | 7 (8.0%) | 12 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 16 (9.2%) | 9 (10%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (8.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 32 (18%) | 14 (16%) | 18 (21%) | ||
medication | 174 | 155 (89%) | 77 (89%) | 78 (90%) | 0.808 |
onset_duration | 171 | 15.51 ± 10.39 (0 - 56) | 16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56) | 15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35) | 0.533 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 169 | 35.40 ± 13.60 (10 - 65) | 34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61) | 36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65) | 0.492 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1741 | control, N = 871 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 174 | 3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.704 |
recovery_stage_b | 174 | 17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24) | 0.669 |
ras_confidence | 174 | 29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45) | 29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40) | 30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45) | 0.315 |
ras_willingness | 174 | 11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.709 |
ras_goal | 174 | 17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25) | 17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25) | 0.297 |
ras_reliance | 174 | 13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18) | 13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20) | 0.295 |
ras_domination | 174 | 9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 0.334 |
symptom | 174 | 30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56) | 30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55) | 29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56) | 0.736 |
slof_work | 174 | 22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30) | 22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30) | 22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30) | 0.579 |
slof_relationship | 174 | 25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35) | 24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35) | 0.450 |
satisfaction | 174 | 20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35) | 19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33) | 21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 0.115 |
mhc_emotional | 174 | 10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 0.345 |
mhc_social | 174 | 14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30) | 14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29) | 0.673 |
mhc_psychological | 174 | 21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36) | 21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36) | 21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36) | 0.582 |
resilisnce | 174 | 16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30) | 15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30) | 0.096 |
social_provision | 174 | 13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.080 |
els_value_living | 174 | 16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22) | 17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.243 |
els_life_fulfill | 174 | 12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19) | 13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20) | 0.059 |
els | 174 | 29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45) | 28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39) | 30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45) | 0.093 |
social_connect | 174 | 26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48) | 27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48) | 26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48) | 0.454 |
shs_agency | 174 | 14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24) | 0.164 |
shs_pathway | 174 | 15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.078 |
shs | 174 | 30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45) | 31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.104 |
esteem | 174 | 12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20) | >0.999 |
mlq_search | 174 | 14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 0.190 |
mlq_presence | 174 | 13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21) | 13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.669 |
mlq | 174 | 28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42) | 27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42) | 0.356 |
empower | 174 | 19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30) | 0.189 |
ismi_resistance | 174 | 14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.977 |
ismi_discrimation | 174 | 11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.442 |
sss_affective | 174 | 10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.787 |
sss_behavior | 174 | 9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.778 |
sss_cognitive | 174 | 8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.775 |
sss | 174 | 28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54) | 28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54) | 28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54) | 0.924 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.127 | 2.89, 3.39 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.179 | -0.421, 0.283 | 0.701 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.149 | 0.185 | -0.213, 0.511 | 0.421 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.308 | 0.265 | -0.212, 0.828 | 0.248 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.309 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.184 | 0.437 | -1.04, 0.673 | 0.675 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.197 | 0.400 | -0.981, 0.586 | 0.622 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.750 | 0.574 | -0.376, 1.88 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.565 | 28.2, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.805 | 0.799 | -0.762, 2.37 | 0.315 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.05 | 0.571 | -0.067, 2.17 | 0.069 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.737 | 0.822 | -0.874, 2.35 | 0.373 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.216 | 11.3, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.115 | 0.306 | -0.485, 0.715 | 0.708 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.021 | 0.248 | -0.506, 0.465 | 0.933 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.332 | 0.356 | -0.366, 1.03 | 0.353 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.338 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.494 | 0.479 | -0.444, 1.43 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.218 | 0.390 | -0.546, 0.982 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.533 | 0.561 | -0.566, 1.63 | 0.344 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.311 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.460 | 0.439 | -0.401, 1.32 | 0.297 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.341 | -0.291, 1.04 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.352 | 0.490 | -0.608, 1.31 | 0.474 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.94 | 0.255 | 9.44, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.356 | 0.360 | -1.06, 0.350 | 0.324 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.028 | 0.327 | -0.613, 0.669 | 0.932 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.14 | 0.470 | 0.217, 2.06 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.977 | 28.4, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.471 | 1.381 | -3.18, 2.24 | 0.733 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.53 | 0.850 | -3.20, 0.136 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.085 | 1.223 | -2.48, 2.31 | 0.945 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.507 | 21.5, 23.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.402 | 0.716 | -1.81, 1.00 | 0.575 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.042 | 0.529 | -1.08, 0.994 | 0.937 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 0.760 | -1.33, 1.65 | 0.835 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.627 | 23.7, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.678 | 0.887 | -1.06, 2.42 | 0.445 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.097 | 0.701 | -1.47, 1.28 | 0.890 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.376 | 1.008 | -1.60, 2.35 | 0.710 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 0.761 | 18.0, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.076 | -0.408, 3.81 | 0.116 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.728 | 0.732 | -0.708, 2.16 | 0.323 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.832 | 1.054 | -1.23, 2.90 | 0.432 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.402 | 9.68, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.540 | 0.569 | -0.575, 1.66 | 0.344 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.510 | 0.380 | -0.234, 1.25 | 0.182 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.468 | 0.546 | -1.54, 0.603 | 0.394 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.620 | 13.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.356 | 0.877 | -1.36, 2.08 | 0.685 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.981 | 0.683 | -0.357, 2.32 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.419 | 0.982 | -2.34, 1.51 | 0.671 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.3 | 0.712 | 19.9, 22.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.540 | 1.007 | -1.43, 2.51 | 0.592 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.752 | -0.363, 2.59 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.451 | 1.082 | -2.57, 1.67 | 0.678 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.486 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.688 | -0.164, 2.53 | 0.087 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 0.589 | -0.283, 2.03 | 0.142 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.847 | -1.19, 2.13 | 0.581 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.307 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.759 | 0.434 | -0.093, 1.61 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.350 | 0.355 | -1.05, 0.345 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.515 | 0.510 | -0.485, 1.51 | 0.315 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.342 | 16.0, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.563 | 0.483 | -0.384, 1.51 | 0.245 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.230 | 0.361 | -0.477, 0.938 | 0.525 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.381 | 0.519 | -0.637, 1.40 | 0.465 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.351 | 11.5, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.966 | 0.496 | -0.007, 1.94 | 0.053 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.387 | 0.342 | -0.283, 1.06 | 0.260 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.091 | 0.492 | -0.872, 1.06 | 0.853 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 0.638 | 27.6, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.53 | 0.902 | -0.239, 3.30 | 0.092 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.635 | 0.588 | -0.518, 1.79 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.376 | 0.847 | -1.28, 2.03 | 0.658 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.2 | 0.999 | 25.2, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 1.413 | -3.83, 1.71 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.052 | 0.973 | -1.96, 1.85 | 0.958 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.07 | 1.399 | -4.82, 0.668 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.542 | 12.7, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.767 | -0.422, 2.58 | 0.160 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.386 | 0.516 | -0.625, 1.40 | 0.456 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.444 | 0.742 | -1.01, 1.90 | 0.551 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.437 | 14.5, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.11 | 0.618 | -0.097, 2.33 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.604 | 0.433 | -0.245, 1.45 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.411 | 0.623 | -1.63, 0.810 | 0.511 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 0.935 | 27.3, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.20 | 1.322 | -0.397, 4.79 | 0.099 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.979 | 0.882 | -0.748, 2.71 | 0.270 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.021 | 1.268 | -2.46, 2.51 | 0.987 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.165 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.233 | -0.457, 0.457 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.125 | 0.235 | -0.586, 0.336 | 0.596 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.289 | 0.338 | -0.373, 0.951 | 0.393 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.376 | 13.8, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.713 | 0.531 | -0.328, 1.75 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.785 | 0.456 | -0.109, 1.68 | 0.088 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.810 | 0.656 | -2.10, 0.476 | 0.220 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.464 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.287 | 0.657 | -1.00, 1.57 | 0.662 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.737 | 0.515 | -0.272, 1.75 | 0.156 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.006 | 0.741 | -1.45, 1.46 | 0.993 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.754 | 26.2, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.066 | -1.09, 3.09 | 0.349 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.52 | 0.858 | -0.163, 3.20 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.776 | 1.234 | -3.19, 1.64 | 0.531 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.460 | 17.8, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.862 | 0.651 | -0.414, 2.14 | 0.187 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.06 | 0.482 | 0.114, 2.00 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 0.694 | -2.63, 0.090 | 0.070 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.269 | 13.9, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.011 | 0.380 | -0.734, 0.757 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.110 | 0.345 | -0.566, 0.786 | 0.751 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.584 | 0.496 | -0.387, 1.56 | 0.241 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.331 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.356 | 0.469 | -1.27, 0.562 | 0.448 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.064 | 0.446 | -0.937, 0.810 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.828 | 0.640 | -2.08, 0.426 | 0.198 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.390 | 9.38, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.149 | 0.552 | -0.932, 1.23 | 0.787 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.035 | 0.386 | -0.722, 0.793 | 0.927 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.22 | 0.556 | -2.31, -0.133 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.98 | 0.399 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 0.564 | -1.27, 0.944 | 0.776 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.201 | 0.398 | -0.981, 0.580 | 0.616 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.540 | 0.573 | -1.66, 0.583 | 0.348 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.34 | 0.391 | 7.58, 9.11 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.161 | 0.553 | -0.922, 1.24 | 0.771 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.039 | 0.420 | -0.863, 0.784 | 0.926 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.790 | 0.604 | -1.97, 0.395 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 1.100 | 26.3, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.149 | 1.556 | -2.90, 3.20 | 0.924 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 1.002 | -2.23, 1.70 | 0.792 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.33 | 1.442 | -5.16, 0.494 | 0.109 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(251) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(251) = -0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51], t(251) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.83], t(251) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(251) = 57.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.59], t(251) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.88], t(251) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(251) = 51.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.17], t(251) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.35], t(251) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(251) = 54.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(251) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.03], t(251) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(251) = 50.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(251) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.98], t(251) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.63], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(251) = 42.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(251) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.04], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.31], t(251) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(251) = 39.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.67], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [0.22, 2.06], t(251) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.09, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(251) = 30.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(251) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.14], t(251) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.31], t(251) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -9.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(251) = 44.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.00], t(251) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.99], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -8.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.65], t(251) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(251) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.42], t(251) = 0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.28], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.35], t(251) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(251) = 25.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.81], t(251) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.16], t(251) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.90], t(251) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(251) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.25], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.60], t(251) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(251) = 23.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.08], t(251) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.32], t(251) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.51], t(251) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(251) = 29.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(251) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.59], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(251) = 32.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.03], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.13], t(251) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(251) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(251) = 1.75, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.51], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(251) = 48.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(251) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.94], t(251) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.40], t(251) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(251) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-7.29e-03, 1.94], t(251) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.21e-03, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.06], t(251) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.06], t(251) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(251) = 45.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.30], t(251) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.79], t(251) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.03], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(251) = 27.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.71], t(251) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.85], t(251) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -5.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.07, 95% CI [-4.82, 0.67], t(251) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.79], t(251) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(251) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.40], t(251) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.90], t(251) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(251) = 35.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.33], t(251) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.45], t(251) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.81], t(251) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(251) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 4.79], t(251) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.71], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.46, 2.51], t(251) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 2.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.94], t(251) = 76.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.65e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(251) = 4.13e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 5.00e-17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.34], t(251) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.95], t(251) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(251) = 38.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.68], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.10, 0.48], t(251) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(251) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.75], t(251) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.19e-03, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.46], t(251) = 8.36e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 1.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(251) = 36.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(251) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.16, 3.20], t(251) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.19, 1.64], t(251) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(251) = 40.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(251) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.11, 2.00], t(251) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.09], t(251) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(251) = 53.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(251) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.79], t(251) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.56], t(251) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(251) = 35.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.56], t(251) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.81], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.43], t(251) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(251) = 26.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(251) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 9.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.31, -0.13], t(251) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(251) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(251) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.58], t(251) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.58], t(251) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(251) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(251) = 0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.78], t(251) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.39], t(251) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.32, 30.63], t(251) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(251) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.70], t(251) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.16, 0.49], t(251) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 811.384 | 822.031 | -402.692 | 805.384 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 811.057 | 832.351 | -399.528 | 799.057 | 6.327 | 3 | 0.097 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,250.381 | 1,261.028 | -622.191 | 1,244.381 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,254.316 | 1,275.611 | -621.158 | 1,242.316 | 2.065 | 3 | 0.559 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,536.588 | 1,547.236 | -765.294 | 1,530.588 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,528.781 | 1,550.076 | -758.391 | 1,516.781 | 13.807 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,049.793 | 1,060.440 | -521.896 | 1,043.793 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,053.828 | 1,075.122 | -520.914 | 1,041.828 | 1.965 | 3 | 0.580 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,284.265 | 1,294.912 | -639.132 | 1,278.265 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,284.569 | 1,305.863 | -636.284 | 1,272.569 | 5.696 | 3 | 0.127 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,234.500 | 1,245.148 | -614.250 | 1,228.500 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,233.369 | 1,254.663 | -610.684 | 1,221.369 | 7.132 | 3 | 0.068 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,159.396 | 1,170.043 | -576.698 | 1,153.396 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,153.771 | 1,175.066 | -570.886 | 1,141.771 | 11.624 | 3 | 0.009 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,787.597 | 1,798.244 | -890.798 | 1,781.597 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,787.009 | 1,808.303 | -887.504 | 1,775.009 | 6.588 | 3 | 0.086 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,471.721 | 1,482.368 | -732.861 | 1,465.721 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,477.390 | 1,498.684 | -732.695 | 1,465.390 | 0.331 | 3 | 0.954 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,592.229 | 1,602.876 | -793.114 | 1,586.229 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,597.215 | 1,618.509 | -792.607 | 1,585.215 | 1.014 | 3 | 0.798 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,676.736 | 1,687.383 | -835.368 | 1,670.736 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,674.215 | 1,695.510 | -831.108 | 1,662.215 | 8.521 | 3 | 0.036 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,340.153 | 1,350.801 | -667.077 | 1,334.153 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,343.738 | 1,365.033 | -665.869 | 1,331.738 | 2.415 | 3 | 0.491 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,586.258 | 1,596.905 | -790.129 | 1,580.258 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,589.461 | 1,610.756 | -788.731 | 1,577.461 | 2.797 | 3 | 0.424 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,651.433 | 1,662.080 | -822.716 | 1,645.433 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,654.331 | 1,675.625 | -821.165 | 1,642.331 | 3.102 | 3 | 0.376 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,482.989 | 1,493.637 | -738.495 | 1,476.989 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,478.083 | 1,499.378 | -733.042 | 1,466.083 | 10.906 | 3 | 0.012 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,235.083 | 1,245.730 | -614.541 | 1,229.083 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,235.228 | 1,256.522 | -611.614 | 1,223.228 | 5.855 | 3 | 0.119 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,276.025 | 1,286.672 | -635.012 | 1,270.025 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,276.938 | 1,298.233 | -632.469 | 1,264.938 | 5.086 | 3 | 0.166 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,279.554 | 1,290.201 | -636.777 | 1,273.554 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,278.262 | 1,299.556 | -633.131 | 1,266.262 | 7.292 | 3 | 0.063 |
els | null | 3 | 1,578.315 | 1,588.962 | -786.157 | 1,572.315 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,577.014 | 1,598.309 | -782.507 | 1,565.014 | 7.300 | 3 | 0.063 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,815.655 | 1,826.302 | -904.827 | 1,809.655 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,815.842 | 1,837.136 | -901.921 | 1,803.842 | 5.813 | 3 | 0.121 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,497.628 | 1,508.275 | -745.814 | 1,491.628 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,498.084 | 1,519.379 | -743.042 | 1,486.084 | 5.543 | 3 | 0.136 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,392.841 | 1,403.488 | -693.420 | 1,386.841 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,393.875 | 1,415.169 | -690.937 | 1,381.875 | 4.966 | 3 | 0.174 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,776.373 | 1,787.020 | -885.187 | 1,770.373 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,777.014 | 1,798.309 | -882.507 | 1,765.014 | 5.359 | 3 | 0.147 |
esteem | null | 3 | 938.627 | 949.274 | -466.313 | 932.627 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 943.742 | 965.036 | -465.871 | 931.742 | 0.885 | 3 | 0.829 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,343.576 | 1,354.223 | -668.788 | 1,337.576 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,345.631 | 1,366.925 | -666.815 | 1,333.631 | 3.945 | 3 | 0.267 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,439.769 | 1,450.416 | -716.885 | 1,433.769 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,441.563 | 1,462.858 | -714.782 | 1,429.563 | 4.206 | 3 | 0.240 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,692.853 | 1,703.501 | -843.427 | 1,686.853 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,694.422 | 1,715.716 | -841.211 | 1,682.422 | 4.432 | 3 | 0.218 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,428.478 | 1,439.125 | -711.239 | 1,422.478 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,428.779 | 1,450.073 | -708.389 | 1,416.779 | 5.699 | 3 | 0.127 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,179.511 | 1,190.158 | -586.755 | 1,173.511 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,181.397 | 1,202.691 | -584.698 | 1,169.397 | 4.114 | 3 | 0.249 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,294.335 | 1,304.982 | -644.167 | 1,288.335 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,294.857 | 1,316.152 | -641.429 | 1,282.857 | 5.478 | 3 | 0.140 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,338.302 | 1,348.950 | -666.151 | 1,332.302 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,335.430 | 1,356.724 | -661.715 | 1,323.430 | 8.873 | 3 | 0.031 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,345.392 | 1,356.039 | -669.696 | 1,339.392 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,347.585 | 1,368.879 | -667.792 | 1,335.585 | 3.807 | 3 | 0.283 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,346.171 | 1,356.818 | -670.086 | 1,340.171 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,348.488 | 1,369.783 | -668.244 | 1,336.488 | 3.683 | 3 | 0.298 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,855.652 | 1,866.299 | -924.826 | 1,849.652 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,855.215 | 1,876.510 | -921.608 | 1,843.215 | 6.436 | 3 | 0.092 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 87 | 3.14 ± 1.18 | 87 | 3.07 ± 1.18 | 0.701 | 0.074 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 43 | 3.29 ± 1.15 | -0.160 | 40 | 3.53 ± 1.14 | -0.490 | 0.343 | -0.256 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 87 | 17.91 ± 2.89 | 87 | 17.72 ± 2.89 | 0.675 | 0.093 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 43 | 17.71 ± 2.68 | 0.100 | 40 | 18.28 ± 2.67 | -0.280 | 0.336 | -0.287 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 87 | 29.33 ± 5.27 | 87 | 30.14 ± 5.27 | 0.315 | -0.293 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 43 | 30.39 ± 4.51 | -0.383 | 40 | 31.93 ± 4.46 | -0.652 | 0.119 | -0.561 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 87 | 11.74 ± 2.02 | 87 | 11.85 ± 2.02 | 0.708 | -0.095 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 43 | 11.71 ± 1.80 | 0.017 | 40 | 12.16 ± 1.78 | -0.259 | 0.257 | -0.371 |
ras_goal | 1st | 87 | 17.17 ± 3.16 | 87 | 17.67 ± 3.16 | 0.303 | -0.261 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 43 | 17.39 ± 2.82 | -0.115 | 40 | 18.42 ± 2.79 | -0.396 | 0.097 | -0.542 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 87 | 13.08 ± 2.90 | 87 | 13.54 ± 2.90 | 0.297 | -0.279 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 43 | 13.46 ± 2.55 | -0.229 | 40 | 14.27 ± 2.52 | -0.442 | 0.146 | -0.492 |
ras_domination | 1st | 87 | 9.94 ± 2.38 | 87 | 9.59 ± 2.38 | 0.324 | 0.221 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 43 | 9.97 ± 2.20 | -0.017 | 40 | 10.75 ± 2.19 | -0.723 | 0.106 | -0.484 |
symptom | 1st | 87 | 30.28 ± 9.11 | 87 | 29.80 ± 9.11 | 0.733 | 0.117 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 43 | 28.75 ± 7.49 | 0.379 | 40 | 28.19 ± 7.36 | 0.400 | 0.733 | 0.138 |
slof_work | 1st | 87 | 22.52 ± 4.73 | 87 | 22.11 ± 4.73 | 0.575 | 0.158 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 43 | 22.48 ± 4.09 | 0.017 | 40 | 22.23 ± 4.04 | -0.046 | 0.785 | 0.096 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 87 | 24.97 ± 5.85 | 87 | 25.64 ± 5.85 | 0.445 | -0.199 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 43 | 24.87 ± 5.17 | 0.029 | 40 | 25.92 ± 5.12 | -0.082 | 0.352 | -0.310 |
satisfaction | 1st | 87 | 19.48 ± 7.10 | 87 | 21.18 ± 7.10 | 0.115 | -0.485 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 43 | 20.21 ± 5.99 | -0.208 | 40 | 22.74 ± 5.91 | -0.445 | 0.054 | -0.722 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 87 | 10.47 ± 3.75 | 87 | 11.01 ± 3.75 | 0.344 | -0.298 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 43 | 10.98 ± 3.15 | -0.281 | 40 | 11.05 ± 3.11 | -0.023 | 0.917 | -0.040 |
mhc_social | 1st | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.79 | 87 | 15.16 ± 5.79 | 0.685 | -0.108 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 43 | 15.79 ± 5.09 | -0.297 | 40 | 15.72 ± 5.04 | -0.170 | 0.955 | 0.019 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 87 | 21.34 ± 6.64 | 87 | 21.89 ± 6.64 | 0.592 | -0.149 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 43 | 22.46 ± 5.77 | -0.306 | 40 | 22.55 ± 5.70 | -0.182 | 0.943 | -0.025 |
resilisnce | 1st | 87 | 15.72 ± 4.54 | 87 | 16.91 ± 4.54 | 0.087 | -0.411 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 43 | 16.60 ± 4.12 | -0.302 | 40 | 18.25 ± 4.09 | -0.465 | 0.068 | -0.573 |
social_provision | 1st | 87 | 13.14 ± 2.87 | 87 | 13.90 ± 2.87 | 0.082 | -0.439 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 43 | 12.79 ± 2.56 | 0.203 | 40 | 14.06 ± 2.54 | -0.095 | 0.024 | -0.738 |
els_value_living | 1st | 87 | 16.64 ± 3.19 | 87 | 17.21 ± 3.19 | 0.245 | -0.324 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 43 | 16.87 ± 2.77 | -0.132 | 40 | 17.82 ± 2.74 | -0.351 | 0.119 | -0.542 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 87 | 12.20 ± 3.27 | 87 | 13.16 ± 3.27 | 0.053 | -0.590 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 43 | 12.58 ± 2.77 | -0.236 | 40 | 13.64 ± 2.74 | -0.292 | 0.082 | -0.646 |
els | 1st | 87 | 28.84 ± 5.95 | 87 | 30.37 ± 5.95 | 0.092 | -0.544 | ||
els | 2nd | 43 | 29.47 ± 4.96 | -0.226 | 40 | 31.38 ± 4.89 | -0.360 | 0.080 | -0.678 |
social_connect | 1st | 87 | 27.16 ± 9.32 | 87 | 26.10 ± 9.32 | 0.455 | 0.227 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 43 | 27.11 ± 7.89 | 0.011 | 40 | 23.98 ± 7.79 | 0.456 | 0.070 | 0.672 |
shs_agency | 1st | 87 | 13.72 ± 5.06 | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.06 | 0.160 | -0.438 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 43 | 14.11 ± 4.25 | -0.156 | 40 | 15.63 ± 4.19 | -0.336 | 0.102 | -0.618 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 87 | 15.37 ± 4.08 | 87 | 16.48 ± 4.08 | 0.073 | -0.536 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 43 | 15.97 ± 3.47 | -0.291 | 40 | 16.68 ± 3.43 | -0.093 | 0.354 | -0.338 |
shs | 1st | 87 | 29.09 ± 8.72 | 87 | 31.29 ± 8.72 | 0.099 | -0.521 | ||
shs | 2nd | 43 | 30.07 ± 7.32 | -0.232 | 40 | 32.29 ± 7.22 | -0.237 | 0.166 | -0.526 |
esteem | 1st | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.54 | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.54 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 43 | 12.50 ± 1.48 | 0.106 | 40 | 12.78 ± 1.47 | -0.139 | 0.374 | -0.245 |
mlq_search | 1st | 87 | 14.52 ± 3.50 | 87 | 15.23 ± 3.50 | 0.181 | -0.319 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 43 | 15.30 ± 3.18 | -0.351 | 40 | 15.21 ± 3.16 | 0.011 | 0.890 | 0.043 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 87 | 13.18 ± 4.33 | 87 | 13.47 ± 4.33 | 0.662 | -0.115 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 43 | 13.92 ± 3.82 | -0.295 | 40 | 14.21 ± 3.78 | -0.298 | 0.725 | -0.118 |
mlq | 1st | 87 | 27.70 ± 7.03 | 87 | 28.70 ± 7.03 | 0.349 | -0.240 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 43 | 29.22 ± 6.25 | -0.364 | 40 | 29.44 ± 6.20 | -0.178 | 0.870 | -0.054 |
empower | 1st | 87 | 18.69 ± 4.29 | 87 | 19.55 ± 4.29 | 0.187 | -0.371 | ||
empower | 2nd | 43 | 19.75 ± 3.72 | -0.456 | 40 | 19.34 ± 3.68 | 0.090 | 0.616 | 0.175 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 87 | 14.39 ± 2.51 | 87 | 14.40 ± 2.51 | 0.976 | -0.007 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 43 | 14.50 ± 2.32 | -0.064 | 40 | 15.10 ± 2.31 | -0.408 | 0.243 | -0.350 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 87 | 11.84 ± 3.09 | 87 | 11.48 ± 3.09 | 0.448 | 0.161 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 43 | 11.78 ± 2.91 | 0.029 | 40 | 10.59 ± 2.90 | 0.403 | 0.065 | 0.535 |
sss_affective | 1st | 87 | 10.15 ± 3.64 | 87 | 10.30 ± 3.64 | 0.787 | -0.081 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 43 | 10.18 ± 3.10 | -0.019 | 40 | 9.11 ± 3.06 | 0.641 | 0.114 | 0.579 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 87 | 9.98 ± 3.72 | 87 | 9.82 ± 3.72 | 0.776 | 0.084 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 43 | 9.78 ± 3.17 | 0.105 | 40 | 9.08 ± 3.13 | 0.388 | 0.312 | 0.367 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 87 | 8.34 ± 3.65 | 87 | 8.51 ± 3.65 | 0.771 | -0.079 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 43 | 8.31 ± 3.18 | 0.019 | 40 | 7.68 ± 3.15 | 0.408 | 0.366 | 0.310 |
sss | 1st | 87 | 28.47 ± 10.26 | 87 | 28.62 ± 10.26 | 0.924 | -0.031 | ||
sss | 2nd | 43 | 28.21 ± 8.53 | 0.055 | 40 | 26.02 ± 8.40 | 0.543 | 0.242 | 0.457 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(232.75) = -0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)
2st
t(247.29) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.73)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(217.26) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.68)
2st
t(247.23) = 0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.72)
ras_confidence
1st
t(196.81) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)
2st
t(252.72) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.48)
ras_willingness
1st
t(205.45) = 0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.72)
2st
t(250.15) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.22)
ras_goal
1st
t(206.03) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)
2st
t(249.96) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.24)
ras_reliance
1st
t(202.18) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)
2st
t(251.23) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.91)
ras_domination
1st
t(216.50) = -0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.35)
2st
t(247.35) = 1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.73)
symptom
1st
t(189.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.25)
2st
t(251.71) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.77 to 2.65)
slof_work
1st
t(198.74) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)
2st
t(252.28) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.51)
slof_relationship
1st
t(203.65) = 0.76, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.43)
2st
t(250.75) = 0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.28)
satisfaction
1st
t(194.09) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)
2st
t(253.00) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.04 to 5.11)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(193.09) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)
2st
t(252.95) = 0.10, p = 0.917, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.43)
mhc_social
1st
t(202.40) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.09)
2st
t(251.16) = -0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.13)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(199.55) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.53)
2st
t(252.05) = 0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.57)
resilisnce
1st
t(210.47) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)
2st
t(248.64) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.43)
social_provision
1st
t(206.24) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.62)
2st
t(249.90) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.38)
els_value_living
1st
t(199.53) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)
2st
t(252.06) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.13)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(194.69) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)
2st
t(252.98) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.25)
els
1st
t(191.99) = 1.69, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)
2st
t(252.77) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.23 to 4.04)
social_connect
1st
t(194.69) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)
2st
t(252.98) = -1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.52 to 0.26)
shs_agency
1st
t(193.48) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)
2st
t(252.98) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.35)
shs_pathway
1st
t(195.65) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)
2st
t(252.90) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.20)
shs
1st
t(193.04) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)
2st
t(252.95) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.93 to 5.36)
esteem
1st
t(229.67) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)
2st
t(246.93) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.93)
mlq_search
1st
t(210.80) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)
2st
t(248.55) = -0.14, p = 0.890, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.28)
mlq_presence
1st
t(203.00) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)
2st
t(250.96) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.94)
mlq
1st
t(205.01) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)
2st
t(250.30) = 0.16, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.92)
empower
1st
t(199.00) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)
2st
t(252.21) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.19)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(216.43) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)
2st
t(247.36) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.60)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(222.02) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)
2st
t(246.77) = -1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.07)
sss_affective
1st
t(195.60) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)
2st
t(252.91) = -1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.41 to 0.26)
sss_behavior
1st
t(196.12) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)
2st
t(252.84) = -1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.66)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(200.74) = 0.29, p = 0.771, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)
2st
t(251.69) = -0.90, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.74)
sss
1st
t(191.41) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)
2st
t(252.62) = -1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.48)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(120.90) = 2.39, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.84)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(108.46) = 1.33, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.37)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(95.08) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.96)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(100.46) = 1.21, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(100.83) = 1.86, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(98.38) = 2.06, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.43)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(107.91) = 3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.84)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(90.75) = -1.83, p = 0.140, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(96.25) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.20)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(99.31) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.72)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(93.46) = 2.05, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(92.86) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.82)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(98.52) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.97)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(96.75) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.21)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(103.75) = 2.19, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.55)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(100.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.89)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(96.74) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.35)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(93.81) = 1.35, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.18)
els
1st vs 2st
t(92.21) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.22)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(93.81) = -2.11, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.13 to -0.12)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(93.10) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.89)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(94.39) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.08)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(92.83) = 1.09, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.82)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(118.16) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(103.97) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(98.90) = 1.39, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.80)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(100.18) = 0.83, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.51)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(96.41) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.78)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(107.86) = 1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(111.97) = -1.93, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.02)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(94.36) = -2.96, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.98 to -0.39)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(94.67) = -1.79, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(97.48) = -1.90, p = 0.120, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.04)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(91.87) = -2.50, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.53)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(117.84) = 0.80, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(106.43) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.60)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(94.10) = 1.84, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.19)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(99.07) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.47)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(99.41) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(97.15) = 1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.05)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(105.93) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.68)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(90.08) = -1.80, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.22 to 0.16)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(95.18) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.01)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(98.00) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.30)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(92.60) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.19)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(92.04) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(97.28) = 1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.34)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(95.64) = 1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.61)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(102.10) = 1.47, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(99.53) = -0.98, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(95.63) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.95)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(92.92) = 1.13, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.07)
els
1st vs 2st
t(91.45) = 1.08, p = 0.568, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.81)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(92.92) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.99 to 1.88)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(92.26) = 0.75, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.41)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(93.46) = 1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.47)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(92.02) = 1.11, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(115.33) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(102.30) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.69)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(97.62) = 1.43, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.76)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(98.81) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.22)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(95.33) = 2.19, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.02)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(105.88) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.80)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(109.66) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.82)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(93.43) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.80)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(93.72) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.59)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(96.32) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.80)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(91.13) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.73)